Fewer, more efficient customers cut Exelon profits

Ontario Electricity COVID-19 Recovery Rate sets a fixed price of 12.8 cents/kWh, replacing time-of-use billing and aligning costs across off-peak, mid-peak, and on-peak periods per Ontario Energy Board guidance through Oct. 31.

Key Points

A flat 12.8 cents/kWh electricity price in Ontario that temporarily replaces time-of-use rates from June 1 to Oct. 31.

✅ Fixed 12.8 cents/kWh, all hours, June 1 to Oct. 31

✅ Higher than off-peak 10.1, lower than mid/on-peak

✅ Based on Ontario Energy Board average cost

Ontario residents will now have to pay a fixed electricity price that is higher than the off-peak hydro rate many in the province have been allowed to pay so far due to the pandemic. 

The announcement, which was made in a news release on Saturday, comes after the Ontario government suspended the normal “time-of-use” billing system on March 24 and as electricity rates are about to change across Ontario. 

The government moved all customers onto the lowest winter rate in response to the pandemic as emergency measures meant more people would be at home during the middle of the day when electricity costs are the highest. 

Now, the government has introduced a new “COVID-19 recovery rate” of 12.8 cents per kilowatt hour at all times of the day. The fixed price will be in place from June 1 to Oct. 31. 

The fixed price is higher than the winter off-peak price, which stood at 10.1 per kilowatt hour. However, it is lower than the mid-peak rate of 14.4 per kilowatt hour and the high-peak rate of 20.8 per kilowatt hour, even though typical bills may rise as fixed pricing ends for many households. 

“Since March 24, 2020, we have invested just over $175 million to deliver emergency rate relief to residential, farm and small business electricity consumers by suspending time-of-use electricity pricing,” Greg Rickford, the minister of energy, northern development and mines, said in a news release. 

“This investment was made to protect the people of Ontario from a marked increase in electricity rates as they did their part by staying home to prevent the further spread of the virus.”

Rickford said that the COVID-19 recovery rate is based on the average cost of electricity set by the Ontario Energy Board. 

“This fixed rate will continue to suspend time-of-use prices in a fiscally responsible manner,” he said. "Consumers will have greater flexibility to use electricity when they need it without paying on-peak and mid-peak prices, and some may benefit from ultra-low electricity rates under new time-of-use options."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Pickering Nuclear Closure will shift supply to natural gas, raising emissions as the electricity grid manages nuclear refurbishment, IESO planning, clean power imports, and new wind, solar, and storage to support electrification.

Key Points

Ontario will close Pickering and rely on natural gas, increasing emissions while other nuclear units are refurbished.

✅ 14% of Ontario electricity supplied by Pickering now

✅ Natural gas use rises; grid emissions projected up 375%

✅ IESO warns gas phaseout by 2030 risks blackouts, costs

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall with natural gas-generated power in a move that will, as an analysis of Ontario's grid shows, hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions substantially in the coming years.

In a report released this week, a nuclear advocacy group urged Ontario to refurbish the aging facility east of Toronto, which is set to be shuttered in phases in 2024 and 2025, prompting debate over a clean energy plan after Pickering as the closure nears. The closure of Pickering, which provides 14 per cent of the province’s annual electricity supply, comes at the same time as Ontario’s other two nuclear stations are undergoing refurbishment and operating at reduced capacity.

Canadians for Nuclear Energy, which is largely funded by power workers' unions, argued closing the 50-year-old facility will result in job losses, emissions increases, heightened reliance on imported natural gas and an electricity supply gap across Ontario.

But Palmer Lockridge, spokesperson for the provincial energy minister, said further extending Pickering’s lifespan isn’t on the table.

“As previously announced in 2020, our government is supporting Ontario Power Generation’s plan to safely extend the life of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station through the end of 2025,” said Lockridge in an emailed response to questions.

“Going forward, we are ensuring a reliable, affordable and clean electricity system for decades to come. That’s why we put a plan in place that ensures we are prepared for the emerging energy needs following the closure of Pickering, and as a result of our government’s success in growing and electrifying the province’s economy.”

The Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford has invested heavily in electrification, sinking billions into electric vehicle and battery manufacturing and industries like steel-making to retool plants to run on electricity rather than coal, and exploring new large-scale nuclear plants to bolster baseload supply.

Natural gas now provides about seven per cent of the province’s energy, a piece of the pie that will rise significantly as nuclear energy dwindles. Emissions from Ontario’s electricity grid, which is currently one of the world’s cleanest with 94 per cent zero-emission power generation, are projected to rise a whopping 375 per cent as the province turns increasingly to natural gas generation. Those increases will effectively undo a third of the hard-won emissions reductions the province achieved by phasing out coal-fired power generation.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages Ontario’s grid, studied whether the province could phase out natural gas generation by 2030 and concluded that “would result in blackouts and hinder electrification” and increase average residential electricity costs by $100 per month.

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, however, obtained draft documents from the electricity operator that showed it had studied, but not released publicly, other scenarios that involved phasing out natural gas without energy shortfalls, price hikes or increases in emissions.

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall facing Ontario with natural gas-generated power in a move that will hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.

One model suggested increasing carbon taxes and imports of clean energy from other provinces could keep blackouts, costs and emissions at bay, while another involved increasing energy efficiency, wind generation and storage.

“By banning gas-fired electricity exports to the U.S., importing all the Quebec water power we can with the existing transmission lines and investing in energy efficiency and wind and solar and storage — do all those things and you can phase out gas-fired power and lower our bills,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

The IESO has argued in response that the study of those scenarios was not complete and did not include many of the challenges associated with phasing out natural gas plants.

Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith asked the IESO to develop “an achievable pathway to zero-emissions in the electricity sector and evaluate a moratorium on new-build natural gas generation stations,” said his spokesperson. That report, an early look at halting gas power, is expected in November.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

India Nuclear Generation Shortfall highlights missed five-year plan targets due to uranium fuel scarcity, commissioning delays at Kudankulam, PFBR slippage, and PHWR equipment bottlenecks under IAEA safeguards and domestic supply constraints.

Key Points

A gap between planned and actual nuclear output due to fuel shortages, reactor delays, and first-of-a-kind hurdles.

✅ Fuel scarcity pre-2009-10 constrained unsafeguarded reactors.

✅ Kudankulam delays from protests, litigation, and remobilisation.

✅ FOAK PHWR equipment bottlenecks and PFBR slippage.

A lack of available domestically produced nuclear fuel and delays in constructing and commissioning nuclear power plants, including first-of-a-kind plants and the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), meant that India failed to meet its nuclear generation targets under the governmental plans over the decade to 2017, even as global project milestones were being recorded elsewhere.

India's nuclear generation target under its 11th five-year plan, covering the period 2007-2012, was 163,395 million units (MUs) and the 12th five-year Plan (2012-17) was 241,748 MUs, Minister of state for the Department of Atomic Energy and the Prime Minister's Office Jitendra Singh told parliament on 6 February. Actual nuclear generation in those periods was 109,642 MUs and 183,488 MUs respectively, Singh said in a written answer to questions in the Lok Sabah.

Singh attributed the shortfall in generation to a lack of availability of the necessary quantities of domestically produced fuel during the three years before 2009-2010; delays to the commissioning of two 1000 MWe nuclear power plants at Kudankulam due to local protests and legal challenges; and delays in the completion of two indigenously designed pressurised heavy water reactors and the PFBR.

Kudankulam 1 and 2 are VVER-1000 pressurised water reactors (PWRs) supplied by Russia's Atomstroyexport under a Russian-financed contract. The units were built by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and were commissioned and are operated by NPCIL under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, with supervision from Russian specialists, while China's nuclear program advanced on a steady development track in the same period. Construction of the units - the first PWRs to enter operation in India - began in 2002.

Singh said local protests resulted in the halt of commissioning work at Kudankulam for nine months from September 2011 to March 2012, when he said project commissioning had been at its peak. As a consequence, additional time was needed to remobilise the workforce and contractors, he said. Litigation by anti-nuclear groups, and compliance with supreme court directives, impacted commissioning in 2013, he said. Unit 1 entered commercial operation in December 2014 and unit 2 in April 2017.

Delays in the manufacture and supply by domestic industry of critical equipment for first-of-a-kind 700 MWe pressurised heavy water reactors -  Kakrapar units 3 and 4, and Rajasthan units 7 and 8 - has led to delays in the completion of those units, the minister said, as well as noting the delay in completion of the PFBR, which is being built at Kalpakkam by Bhavini. In answer to a separate question, Singh said the PFBR is in an "advance stage of integrated commissioning" and is "expected to approach first criticality by the year 2020."

Eight of India's operating nuclear power plants are not under IAEA safeguards and can therefore only use indigenously-sourced uranium. The other 14 units operate under IAEA safeguards and can use imported uranium. The Indian government has taken several measures to secure fuel supplies for reactors in operation and under construction, amid coal supply rationing pressures elsewhere in the power sector, concluding fuel supply contracts with several countries for existing and future reactors under IAEA Safeguards and by "augmentation" of fuel supplies from domestic sources, Singh said.

Kakrapar 3 and 4, with Kakrapar 3 criticality already reported, and Rajasthan 7 and 8 are all currently expected to enter service in 2022, according to World Nuclear Association information.

Joint venture discussions

In February 2016 the government amended the Atomic Energy Act to allow NPCIL to form joint venture companies with other public sector undertakings (PSUs) for involvement in nuclear power generation and possibly other aspects of the fuel cycle, reflecting green industrial strategies shaping future reactor waves globally. In answer to another question, Singh confirmed that NPCIL has entered into joint ventures with NTPC Limited (National Thermal Power Corporation, India's largest power company) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Two joint venture companies - Anushakti Vidhyut Nigam Limited and NPCIL-Indian Oil Nuclear Energy Corporation Limited - have been incorporated, and discussions on possible projects to be set up by the joint venture companies are in progress.

An exploratory discussion had also been held with Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Singh said. Indian Railways - which has in the past been identified as a potential joint venture partner for NPCIL - had "conveyed that they were not contemplating entering into an MoU for setting up of nuclear power plants," Singh said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Energy Justice Program drives a renewables-based transition, challenging utility monopolies with legal action, promoting rooftop solar, distributed energy, public power, and climate justice to decarbonize the grid and protect communities and wildlife nationwide.

Key Points

A climate justice initiative advancing renewables, legal action, and public power to challenge utility monopolies.

✅ Challenges utility barriers to rooftop solar and distributed energy

✅ Advances state and federal policies for equitable, public power

✅ Uses litigation to curb fossil fuel dependence and protect communities

The Center for Biological Diversity on Monday rolled out a new program to push back against the nation's community- and wildlife-harming energy system that the climate advocacy group says is based on fossil fuels and a "centralized monopoly on power."

The goal of the new effort, the Energy Justice Program, is to help forge a path towards a just and renewables-based energy future informed by equitable regulation principles.

"Our broken energy system threatens our climate and our future," said Jean Su, the Energy Justice Program's new director, in a statement. "Utilities were given monopolies to ensure public access to electricity, but these dinosaur corporations are now hurting the public interest by blocking the clean energy transition, including via coal and nuclear subsidy schemes that profit off the fossil fuel era."

"In this era of climate catastrophe," she continued, "we have to stop these outdated monopolies and usher in a new electricity future that works for people and the planet."

To meet those goals, the new program will pursue a number of avenues, including using legal action to fight utilities' obstruction of clean energy efforts, helping communities advance local solar programs through energy freedom strategies in the South, and crafting energy policies on the state, federal, and international levels in step with commitments from major energy buyers to achieve a 90% carbon-free goal by 2030.

Some of that work is already underway. In June the Center filed a brief with a federal court in a bid to block Arizona power utility Salt River Project from slapping a 60-percent electricity rate hike on rooftop solar customers—amid federal efforts to reshape electricity pricing that critics say are being rushed—a move the group described (pdf) as an obstacle to achieving "the energy transition demanded by climate science."

The Center is among the groups in Energy Justice NC. The diverse coalition seeks to end the energy stranglehold in North Carolina held by Duke Energy, which continues to invest in fossil fuel projects even as it touts clean energy and grid investments in the region.

The time for a new energy system, says the Energy Justice Program, is now, as climate change impacts increasingly strain the grid.

"Amid this climate and extinction emergency," said Su, "the U.S. can't afford to stick with the same centralized, profit-driven electricity system that drove us here in the first place. We have to seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to design a new system of accountable, equitable, truly public power."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Portsmouth Wind Turbine Complaints highlight noise, shadow flicker, resident impacts, Town Council hearings, and Green Development mitigation plans near Portsmouth High School, covering renewable energy output, PPAs, and community compliance.

Key Points

Resident reports of noise and shadow flicker near Portsmouth High School, prompting review and mitigation efforts.

✅ Noise exceeds ambient levels seasonally, residents report fatigue.

✅ Shadow flicker lasts up to 90 minutes on affected homes.

✅ Town tasks developer to meet neighbors and propose mitigation.

The combination of the noise and shadows generated by the town’s wind turbine has rankled some neighbors who voiced their frustration to the Town Council during its meeting Monday.

Mark DePasquale, the founder and chairman of the company that owns the turbine, tried to reassure them with promises to address the bothersome conditions.

David Souza, a lifelong town resident who lives on Lowell Drive, showed videos of the repeated, flashing shadows cast on his home by the three blades spinning.

“I am a firefighter. I need to get my sleep,” he said. “And now it’s starting to affect my job. I’m tired.”

Town Council President Keith Hamilton tasked DePasquale with meeting with the neighbors and returning with an update in a month. “What I do need you to do, Mr. DePasquale, is to follow through with all these people.”

DePasquale said he was unaware of the flurry of complaints lodged by the residents Monday. His company had only heard of one complaint. “If I knew there was an issue before tonight, we would have responded,” he said.

His company, Green Development LLC, formerly Wind Energy Development LLC, installed the 279-foot-tall turbine near Portsmouth High School that started running in August 2016, as offshore developers like Deepwater Wind in Massachusetts plan major construction nearby. It replaced another turbine installed by a separate company that broke down in 2012.

In November 2014, the town signed an agreement with Wind Energy Development to take down the existing turbine, pay off the remaining $1.45 million of the bond the town took out to install it and put up a new turbine, amid broader legal debates like the Cornwall wind farm ruling that can affect project timelines.

In exchange, Wind Energy Development sells a portion of the energy generated by the turbine to the town at a rate of 15.5 cents per kilowatt hour for 25 years. Some of the energy generated is sold to the town of Coventry.

“We took down (the old turbine) and paid off the debt,” DePasquale said, noting that cancellations can carry high costs as seen in Ontario wind project penalties for scrapping projects. “I have no problem doing whatever the council wants … There was an economic decision made to pay off the bond and build something better.”

The turbine was on pace to produce 4 million-plus kilowatt hours per year, Michelle Carpenter, the chief operating officer of Wind Energy Development, said last April. It generates enough energy to power all municipal and school buildings in town, she said, while places like Summerside’s wind power show similarly strong output.

The constant stream of shadows cast on certain homes in the area can last for as long as an hour-and-a-half, according to Souza. “We shouldn’t have to put up with this,” he said.

Sprague Street resident John Vegas said the turbine’s noise, especially in late August, is louder than the neighborhood’s ambient noise.

“Throughout the summer, there’s almost no flicker, but this time of year it’s very prominent,” Vegas added. “It can be every day.”

He mentioned neighbors needed to be better organized to get results.

“When the residents purchased our properties we did not have this wind turbine in our backyard,” Souza said in a memo. “Due to the wind turbine … our quality of life has suffered.”

After the discussion, the council unanimously voted to allow Green Development to sublease excess energy to the Rhode Island Convention Center Authority, a similar agreement to the one the company struck with Coventry, as regional New England solar growth adds pressure on grid upgrade planning.

“This has to be a sustainable solution,” DePasquale said. “We will work together with the town on a solution.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News